ddl, I_S: support runaway attribute in resource group

[CabinfeverB]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #43691
should be merged after #43843

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No code

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[ti-chi-bot]

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has not been approved.

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

[ti-chi-bot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[CabinfeverB]

/test build

[Connor1996]

It occurs to me that as we can pass any duration to EXEC_ELAPSED_IN_SEC, does IN_SEC make any sense?

[CabinfeverB]

I agree. EXEC_ELAPSED is better. @songrijie

[CabinfeverB]

cc @nolouch @glorv

[glorv]

Seems if rule == nil, the output will format it with a " ," which seems weird to me.

[CabinfeverB]

Rule should never be nil. Currently, we only have ExecElapsed in Rule, and I check it in NewGroupFromOptions.

[glorv]

Then I suggest remove this check or change it to check setting.Rule == nil and return error directly in this case.

[nolouch]

lgtm

[glorv]

LGTM

[glorv]

Suggested change

	// convert runaway settings
	queryLimit := ""
	if setting := group.RunawaySettings; setting != nil {
	runawayRule, runawayAction, runawayWatch := "", "", ""
	if setting.Rule == nil {
	return errors.Errorf("unexpected runaway config in resource group")
	}
	dur := time.Duration(setting.Rule.ExecElapsedTimeMs) * time.Millisecond
	runawayRule = fmt.Sprintf("%s=%s", "EXEC_ELAPSED", dur.String())
	runawayAction = fmt.Sprintf("%s=%s", "ACTION", model.RunawayActionType(setting.Action).String())
	if setting.Watch != nil {
	dur := time.Duration(setting.Watch.LastingDurationMs) * time.Millisecond
	runawayWatch = fmt.Sprintf("%s=%s[%s]", "WATCH", model.RunawayWatchType(setting.Watch.Type).String(), dur.String())
	queryLimit = fmt.Sprintf("%s, %s, %s", runawayRule, runawayAction, runawayWatch)
	} else {
	queryLimit = fmt.Sprintf("%s, %s", runawayRule, runawayAction)
	}
	// convert runaway settings
	var builder strings.Builder
	if setting := group.RunawaySettings; setting != nil {
	if setting.Rule == nil {
	return errors.Errorf("unexpected runaway config in resource group")
	}
	dur := time.Duration(setting.Rule.ExecElapsedTimeMs) * time.Millisecond
	builder.WriteString("EXEC_ELAPSED=")
	builder.WriteString(dur.String())
	builder.WriteString(", ACTION=")
	builder.WriteString(model.RunawayActionType(setting.Action).String())
	if setting.Watch != nil {
	dur := time.Duration(setting.Watch.LastingDurationMs) * time.Millisecond
	builder.WriteString(", WATCH=")
	builder.WriteString(model.RunawayWatchType(setting.Watch.Type).String())
	builder.Write('[')
	builder.WriteString(dur.String())
	builder.Write(']')
	}
	}
	queryLimit := builder.String()

I think use StringBuilder instead of nested fmt.Sprintf can make the code cleaner, but I'm ok with the current code.

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: glorv, nolouch

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [glorv]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2023-06-05 08:26:38.724841001 +0000 UTC m=+250384.997813787: ☑️ agreed by nolouch.
• 2023-06-06 10:59:23.687514558 +0000 UTC m=+2255.532149154: ☑️ agreed by glorv.